The theory of intelligent design was decisively ejected from American public (state) schools at the conclusion of the 2005 Dover trial, when Judge Jones found (pdf) that it was a religious doctrine, and not a scientific one. In its narrow form, championed by Michael Behe, intelligent design raises a direct challenge to Darwinism by claiming that there are certain biological mechanisms that could not have arisen as a result of natural selection working on natural variation. Instead, they are so complex that they must be evidence of a supernatural designer.

It is generally agreed that this is bad science. The explanations for any particular complexity can be produced by science without allowing any room for miracles, even if this will take time. But is it also bad theology? Christian evolutionary biologists claim that it is. The sociologist of science, Steve Fuller, who testified for the defence at the Dover trial, claims it is not. This week we examine his claim, and the reactions to it.

Monday's response

Steve Fuller: The greatest scientific advances presuppose something that looks very like the mind of God

Wednesday's response

Michael Ruse: Intelligent design theory is a mountain of waffle resting on analogy. Neither scientists nor believers should touch it